Zuckerberg Relents On Terms Of Service Kerfufflehttp://www.businessinsider.com/zuckerberg-relents-on-terms-of-service-kerfuffle-2009-2/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:54:48 -0400Nicholas Carlsonhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/c9b9b9147dba1e4a26a20c00bittergreen Thu, 28 May 2009 12:23:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/c9b9b9147dba1e4a26a20c00
<a href="http://www.cnreplicabags.com" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">chanel replica bags</a> New York City banks, of course, are some of the largest beneficiaries of TARP money and some fo the biggest H-1B hirers. <a href="http://www.replica-handbags-retailer.com" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">louis vuitton replica bags</a> The biggest concern of those opposed to the RECEIVERSHIP route is that the debt markets will seize up again as debtholders realize that their capital is at risk. Chris Whalen thinks this fear is overblown.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/827a6c7927939f49625fa800PatSat, 21 Feb 2009 00:37:43 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/827a6c7927939f49625fa800
Our take is: Duh. Users should assume that as soon as they upload content to a social networking site like Facebook, it's out of their control like a scarf lost to the wind.
Why should users just accept this as a given because it is "hard" for Facebook to actually respect users desires to have control over how a company uses (or abuses) the users information.
http://www.businessinsider.com/c/35b9b91417ec9d496b06d200mavennyc821Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:32:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/35b9b91417ec9d496b06d200
excellent use of the word "kerfuffle" in headline. we need to see more of this!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/417a6c7943b49d4966069600Tom H. C. AndersonThu, 19 Feb 2009 14:34:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/417a6c7943b49d4966069600
Agree with the reaction to the new TOS, but felt the response by Zuckenberg was good. I posted about it on my blog yesterday, along with some tips for Facebook and other companies who may be involved in managing CGM. We've done a lot of work in this area, and these companies need to learn to trust their user community a bit more, if they do they can even be leveraged to keep moderation costs down etc.
Post here: http://www.tomhcanderson.com/2009/02/18/we-the-people-of-facebook/
Tom H. C. Anderson
Managing Partner
Anderson Analytics, LLChttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/6f7a6c79f4679c49c81ec600Ass SalamiWed, 18 Feb 2009 14:56:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/6f7a6c79f4679c49c81ec600
Nice use of "kerfuffle"
Seems to be a popular choice of writers nowadays:
http://news.google.com/news?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US304&sourceid=chrome&q=kerfuffle&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn
http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544bc35d9c492f30cd00Nick CharlesWed, 18 Feb 2009 14:13:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544bc35d9c492f30cd00
I think you chalk up this mistake to Ted Ullyot. Not the bravest guy--a little bit of pressure from zuck and he folds like a very, very cheap tent.
http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b914ff499c496ac3b100Mark SigalWed, 18 Feb 2009 12:48:47 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b914ff499c496ac3b100
While perception is reality, and the emotional response suggests that Facebook needs to do a better job of being consultative with its community versus delivering material edicts from on high, the truth is that this is much ado about nothing.
We create a "snail trail" when we plug into communities online, that snail trail becomes substrate that interconnects with other users and discussion threads.
It's just not reasonable to expect that you can rip that out, creating virtual potholes in the communal space.
Also, why do we begrudge Facebook as nefarious for wanting to monetize these snail trails when we happily accept Google monetizing our traversals, web pages, images and the like? It’s just silly, in my opinion.
Check out:
Why Facebook’s Terms of Service Change is Much Ado About Nothing.
(http://bit.ly/xxE4d)
For more fodder on this one.
Markhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544b72479c49fe0acd00Zuck SucksWed, 18 Feb 2009 12:37:54 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544b72479c49fe0acd00
how creepy is it that Zuckerberg and Facebook repeatedly have to alter their policy because they keep wanting to take your personal info and use it for their needs (who can forget Beacon) ?
It's obvious that Zuckerberg cares nothing about anyone's privacy, except of course his own. Just something to think about next time you possibly provide any information to his company.
Happy Facebooking ! http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b914da449c49abb9b100@ Derryl C.Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:26:50 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b914da449c49abb9b100
Completely agree. I went through a period of a few years where I enjoyed posting anything and everything on the internet, and it wasn't until I grew up and started working full-time that I realised this was not the best way to go about things.
Right now, I limit my friends on Facebook to people I knew for more than one year, and the ones that I no longer actively talk to, are on my limited profile. Almost everything I upload, whether it is photos or videos, gets customized to only reach my friends minus the people on my limited profile. Even then, I am tempted regularly to delete everyone but the 12 people I see every weekend.
A large part of posting images and videos on facebook, in regards to privacy, should always be self-censorship. If you wouldn't want your parents, neighbors, professors, boss, etc., viewing the photo / video in question, don't put it up.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/6f7a6c799e339c4998edc600Brad MiskellWed, 18 Feb 2009 11:13:17 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/6f7a6c799e339c4998edc600
Wow, what business is it that you're inside?
I mean, it's one thing to understand people may use material you post on a 2.0 site without permission. They might also illegally use AP photos posted online, happens all the time. It's another thing entirely -- DUH -- for posters to a social network or AP to willingly relinquish ownership. Why should users of 2.0 sites have any different rights regarding ownership of their posted material than, say, publishers of Silicon Alley Insider? Both your contempt for users of social networks (and surely you're one) and your logic are troubling.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/6f7a6c79312a9c495fe8c600Derryl C.Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:33:05 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/6f7a6c79312a9c495fe8c600
I can see how people would be upset by the insinuation that Facebook owns their content.
But the strange thing is that people seem to be more worried about exposing their content to a regulated organization like Facebook than to the millions of its unregulated users.
You can tweak your privacy settings, but the fact remains that many people, who have fewer scruples than Facebook, have access to that content - and, I feel, would be more inclined to misuse such content than FB would ever be.
Just a thought.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b914a1259c4918a2b100Dan FrommerWed, 18 Feb 2009 10:13:37 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b914a1259c4918a2b100
Superdude: Can't say I disagree. Commenters are often informative and frequently hilarious. Glad you're reading.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544b5a259c49a4f9cd00Dan FrommerWed, 18 Feb 2009 10:12:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544b5a259c49a4f9cd00
Dean: Ah, yes. The "related links" section used to be plain text, now has images attached. Plus the new author box. We think it'll increase its utility overall, as people don't like to read text headline links. And in general, we want readers to get to know our authors better, because we think that sets us apart from newswires, etc. But the side effect is a longer scroll to the comments. I'll note to our design team but I don't think this will change.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544b94249c4947f9cd00superdudeWed, 18 Feb 2009 10:09:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544b94249c4947f9cd00
SAI, your raging, often angry, sometimes well spoken, anonymous user base is your biggest asset. the fact you take time to read comments and let that been known by replying to them is fine icing on a delicious cake. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b914b4239c491ba1b100NickdWed, 18 Feb 2009 10:05:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b914b4239c491ba1b100
Very clever response on two counts.
First is the concession on principle. It's a classic opening gambit in hardball negotiations. Doing so gets the noise level down, and hands the battle off to the lawyers, activists and fine print. And, as we all know, you can get pretty much anything you want by carefully crafting the fine print.
Second is the broad invitation to help draft the Facebook Bill or Rights. This engages the existing community, and only brings more attention to the site. And it might even result in the discovery of a virtual James Madison.
Evil, but Brilliant. John Malone would be proud.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544bb1219c4924f8cd00DeanWermerWed, 18 Feb 2009 09:56:49 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544bb1219c4924f8cd00
dan, looks like I was confused (or not scrolling down far enough after the story and below story links/sponsored links/bio to see the comments) - an example of why one should not speak out before having one's morning jog and coffee; cheers.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/6f7a6c794a1f9c49b7e2c600Dan FrommerWed, 18 Feb 2009 09:46:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/6f7a6c794a1f9c49b7e2c600
Canada, you're right. That's an interesting discussion to have, but Nick was referring to social networking sites, so I have edited the text to clarify.
Dean: I don't understand. Nothing should have changed in terms of the ability to view comments. Please contact me directly at dfrommer@alleyinsider.com so I can sort this out.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b9146c1e9c49149fb100Dean WermerWed, 18 Feb 2009 09:42:51 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5db9b9146c1e9c49149fb100
There is a difference between assuming that there might be leakage to third parties when one posts information to a social website and assuming that the owner of the social website will assert ownership of the posted material, including on a perpetual basis. Asserting ownership of things such as posted photos is a pretty significant land grab by Facebook, and, frankly, the reaction of its users should have been easily predicted by Facebook management. The type of protection that Facebook wants/needs regarding its use of user material could have been crafted in a manner that protected both Facebook and its users. Rookie mistake by Facebook and yet another Facebook "incident" that makes one wonder who exactly is in charge at the company.
As an aside, SAI is one of the few sites where I have enjoyed reading the comments (usually about 10-20% of comments are interesting and appear from knowledgeable sources) and commenting myself. The new site design where I have to remember to click on the comment bubble rather than the headline, or make an extra click after viewing the story to see comments, reduces the site utility to me. SAI is also one of the few sites I read outside my feedreader, but no doubt comments do not show in the feed as well.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544b5b139c49f9f2cd00Nicholas CarlsonWed, 18 Feb 2009 08:55:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544b5b139c49f9f2cd00
@Canada, I guess I'm drawing a distinction between inherently social Web applications like Facebook and non-social ones like Google Docs. Though I bet if you look deeper into Google Docs TOS you'll be surprised.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544bb7129c49c3f2cd00CanadaWed, 18 Feb 2009 08:52:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/7837544bb7129c49c3f2cd00
The following comment does not serve SAI well. It reflects a gaping lack of thought. "Our take is: duh. Users should assume that as soon as they upload content to the Web, it's out of their control like a scarf lost to the wind."
If one follows the logic of this comment, than cloud services are dead. Why would I use a web application (Facebook is just that) if I have no assurance of ownership or security. Accordingly, I would guess Google docs is dead along with LinkedIn et al.